Re: [Talk-us] MassGIS Road Import - Lanes

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Spencer Gardner
 wrote:
> Is anyone on here familiar with the process that was used to upload MassGIS
> road data for the state of Massachusetts? I'm noticing a lot of incorrect
> lane information on one-way residential streets and wondering if the bulk
> import process could be the cause. I'd love to hear if anyone else has come
> across this.


Not intimately knowledgeable here, but aware. I recall there was
widespread problem with one-way streets because the import was
inconsistent in one-way polarity. Those are i hope mostly fixed by
now. I don't recall discussion of lanes, though.

My own street is similar, one-way and we have 1 travel lane plus both
side parking in reality and it's coded as lanes = 2.

IDK how or why.

As to the Bulk import , at the time, MASSGIS had better data than
TIGER so that was the basis in MASS. I'm cc'ing a couple folk who
might remember if lanes was odd in MASS GIS.
But if we're lucky someone from MASSGIS will speak up.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] MassGIS Road Import - Lanes

[Spencer Gardner]

Is anyone on here familiar with the process that was used to upload MassGIS
road data for the state of Massachusetts? I'm noticing a lot of incorrect
lane information on one-way residential streets and wondering if the bulk
import process could be the cause. I'd love to hear if anyone else has come
across this.

For reference, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8615602

I haven't scoured the rest of the state, but Cambridge is riddled with
one-way residential streets that all have lanes=2 when there's clearly only
a single travel lane.

Thanks
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

  From: Frederik Ramm 
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 19 September 2016, 19:09
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey
   
Hi,

On 09/19/2016 05:13 PM, Adam Old wrote:
> For the most part we would like to send people out using their mobile
> devices and an app like Go
> Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/go-map!!/id592990211?mt=8
>  or a
> paper survey form that we could then update OSM with. Hopefully this
> would introduce a good number of new people to OSM as mappers and/or
> users. 

Sounds like a win-win situation.


Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

I'd agree with Frederik.
Only this morning I was looking at a site for volunteer tree wardens in Surrey, 
England; and at the weekend a friend in our party was visiting what are known 
as veteran trees in Kent.
  
|  
|   |  
STWN
   |  |

  |

 

We already have a fairly extensive set of tags for mapping trees and their 
attributes. In a few places well-attributed tree data has been imported to OSM: 
take a look at Vienna of the London Borough of Southwark as examples for a 
reasonably extended set of tags.
Basically I would look for a minimum of circumference (in UK this is usually 
Breast-height girth BHG or roughly circumference at 1.5 m above ground level), 
species (& if appropriate cultivar). Not strictly necessary but very useful are 
genus (especially if precise species is not known, or for things like flowering 
cherries), leaf_type & leaf_cycle (both make it easier for data consumers & 
editors). Date of planting is very useful but often not readily available.
Now to other things:
   
   - Height. Harder to survey if not specifically equipped for the purpose. 
Obviously useful.
   - Spread. Again a bit harder to survey, although finding the drip line on 
wet days makes it easier. This is less often added to tree data in OSM, but 
there was an interesting HOT project using tree spread to estimate fire risk. I 
have the details somewhere.
   - Condition. I think as long as volunteers are working from a protocol to 
assess tree condition there is no trouble in adding it. If you do have a given 
scale then it may be worth adding the information to the wiki, and then others 
can use it. It may also be useful to use a condition:description tag to add 
additional information (e.g., crown thinning, leaf spot, fungal growth etc).
   - Survey Date (actually should be tagged last_survey_date). Important for 
assessing things like height & condition, but also circumference. The 
professional arboriculturalists woring for my local council seem to get round 
the tree estate every 3 years: adding or updating tags at his frequency on OSM 
is unlikely to cause any issues.
   - Proposed Work. This is the only item raised which does not fit into OSM 
typical tagging approach, but I can see no harm in it.

Lastly & most important from a mapping/tagging perspective:

By all means use OSM but create & maintain your own unique identifiers for the 
trees. OSM identifiers are not guaranteed to be stable, and the nodes may 
accidentally be re-purposed. Current best practice is for trees to be labelled 
with a tag giving the identifier for the tree register ( (See this site for 
examples). Even if a register is only kept in a spreadsheet (which I wouldn't 
recommend as I've accidentally created duplicates when doing it myself) the 
identifiers can be added to OSM as ref tags. 

For actual mapping of trees either use an enhanced version of an existing OSM 
tool (e.g., Vespucci can read xml files designed for josm), or combine 
something more dedicated to capturing tree data with more accurate GPS readings 
(I use ObsMapp & add Garmin waypoint info when recording species detail). To 
date I've found using a mobile phone app GPS a little unreliable when mapping 
trees which are close together, the individual trees are often not positioned 
correctly in relation to adjacent trees. If you have good quality aerial 
imagery (or even better Lidar) then use this as the guide. A tape measure or 
digital measurer, and compass are still useful tools for getting correct 
relationships within a grove of trees.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that this data is useful for many purposes. As an 
enthusiastic amateur entomologist I often want to search out rarer trees to see 
if I can find particular insects. I've written about the possibilities for 
using city tree registers for education here: From Mapping Trees to Tree 
Trails: some thoughts
Best wishes with the project.
Jerry
Coda: I was vaguely aware of OpenTreeMap but they seem to be anything but open 
with a monthly charge of 80 bucks.
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
>From Mapping Trees to Tree Trails: some thoughts
 The other day I engaged in a twitter conversation with Oliver Pescott, a 
biologist at the Centre of Environment ...  |   |